Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Large females

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Large females

I think this should be deleted.Xpendersx 17:53, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 16:15, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and rewrite. I couldn't resist adding Professor Peach! Dlyons493 17:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete opinionated and completely non verifiable. "most commonly African-Americans" is an opinion not a fact, as is fat bottomed girls in the list of songs. chowells 17:16, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah! Let's have an article for big girls, an article for small girls, an article for short girls, an article for tall girls, an article for pretty girls, an article for ugly girls, an article for dark girls, an article for light girls, an article for girly girls, an article for boyish girls, an article for, no, no, no, no, no, let's just delete. TheMadBaron 18:54, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment there is a pornography genre centered on images of obese women. there are hetereosexual men to whom an overweight woman is more attractive than a woman of medically-recommended. Chubby chaser (an episode of Cheers used this term to refer to a woman who was attracted to Norm and Paul but not Sam, but i've normally heard it used to refer to men) redirects to something male homosexual specific. I think the concept deserves an article, but "Large females" is neither the article nor the title for it. Nateji77 19:40, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment I also think the concept deserves an article (see vote above) and think this might be a starting point but you certainly have a point about the title. Dlyons493 19:48, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - original research and not verifiable as such. --Pjacobi 21:20, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
    • an article already exists at BBW.this article was started as a goof.Xpendersx 22:23, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge anything worth keeping to BBW as per Xpendersx Dlyons493 02:56, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. About as unencyclopedic as striped dog. / Peter Isotalo 05:27, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as content is covered by other articles. -- Kjkolb 05:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. BBW and Fat fetishism cover the same topic, and are better, more appropriately titled articles. Nateji77 12:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.